|
|
| TIME TO TALK?
The debate to renew dialogue with Iran. January 26, 1998 |
|---|
NewsHour Backgrounders
December 15, 1997
President Khatami calls for a dialogue with the West.
May 26, 1997
Mohammad Khatami is elected president of Iran .
January 30, 1997
The State Department's annual report on human rights violations .
March 13, 1996
A summit on terrorism is held in Egypt .
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the Middle East.
Outside Links
Iranian Embassy in Canada
News, views and information on Iran from NetIran.
Department of State
In a recent televised interview, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami invited American scholars, artists and tourists to visit his country and help "breakdown the wall of mistrust" between the two governments. Although Mr. Khatami stopped short of suggesting any renewal of official dialogue between the two governments, his overtures to the American people has prompted a debate over whether it is time to rethink U.S. policy toward Iran.
Since the revolution that toppled the American-backed government in February 1979, relations between the U.S. and Iran have been virtually frozen. (The revolutionary government that came to power severed relations between the two countries by seizing the U.S. embassy in Tehran and holding 52 American hostages for 444 days.)
And although isolating Iran politically and economically has been official U.S. policy since the revolution, in the post-Gulf War period, in which U.S policy entails a "dual containment" of both Iran and Iraq, a chorus of voices have been calling for a re-evaluation of U.S.- Iran relations.
In a May/June 1997 issue of Foreign Affairs, former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft argue that current U.S. policy of isolating Iran is both ineffective and divisive. Although they recognize that Iran's support of terrorism and its quest for nuclear weapons directly threaten U.S. national interests, Mr. Brzezinski and Mr. Scowcroft contend that these issues should be addressed through dialogue, "rather than the current crude and counterproductive attempt to cordon off the entire country."
The Clinton administration and many members of Congress, however, remain committed to maintaining sanctions against Iran.
Overcoming the mutual animosity that divides the two nations will be a considerable task. Memories of the hostage crisis still evoke strong feelings amongst most Americans. In Iran, anti-American sentiments can be traced to the CIA-engineered coup that toppled the democratic government of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953 and the U.S.' subsequent support for the unpopular regime of Shah Mohammed Reza.
According to Gary Sick, former member of the United States National Security Council during the Carter Administration and current adjunct professor of International Affairs at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, hostilities between the two countries can only be resolved through direct talks.
Congressman Sam Gejdenson (D - Conn), however, contends no official dialogue should exist between the two countries until the Islamic state renounces terrorism.
Does not engaging Iran send the wrong message to other nations who condone terrorism? Considering Iran's hostility toward Israel and its opposition to the peace process, what could one expect from U.S.-Iran dialogue in relation to Iran and Israel? Isn't it possible that constructive dialogue and the readmission of Iran into the international community could do more to influence and Iran's behavior than sanctions ever achieved? Is Iran ready to have a dialogue with the United States? Didn't previous U.S policies toward Iran create the hostility that divides the two nations today?
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
